The embodiments described herein relate to systems and methods for detection of cells using engineered transduction particles. More particularly, the embodiments described herein also relate to a container and instrument within which the detection of bacteria can be performed in an integrated, closed system with walkaway functionality.
Detection of bacteria, especially drug resistant strains, is a critical step in diagnosing and limiting spread of bacterial infections. For example, MRSA is a drug-resistant version of the common Staphylococcus aureus bacteria that is carried by a significant portion of the population in the U.S. Most infections of MRSA occur in hospitals, and can have a high mortality rate (MRSA infections kill approximately 19,000 people in the U.S. every year). Accordingly, there is a need for efficient, accurate and rapid identification of the bacterial strains (including their phenotype and/or genotype and other molecular targets) that cause infection, such as MRSA. Particularly important is the ability to identify the bacterial phenotype and/or genotype and other molecular targets from a variety of different samples (e.g., human samples, environmental samples, plant samples, veterinary samples, food samples or the like), so that the appropriate treatment and control regimen can be started in a timely fashion.
One known method for identifying bacteria includes bacterial culture. Culturing is highly sensitive, but often takes 18 hours or more to yield a result, and is therefore not suitable for rapid diagnosis or for efficient screening purposes. Known culturing methods are often performed using systems that require highly trained personnel to perform the assay, and are therefore not suitable for use in a variety of different settings. Known culturing methods are also prone to contamination, which can result in false positives and/or misidentification of the bacteria. Moreover, known culturing methods employ specifically tailored culture protocols for identification of various bacterial species, thus testing a broad bacteria panel can rapidly elevate the cost.
Direct bacterial immunodetection, that is, detection using an antibody antigen reaction, is another method for bacterial detection. Known methods of immunodetection can produce results more quickly and at a lower cost than a culture, but are often limited by the availability of selective antibodies for the bacterial strain of interest and available antibodies are prone to cross-reactivity. Such known methods are also less sensitive than culturing, so there is often nevertheless a requirement of bacterial amplification that can lengthen the assay time.
Other known methods for detection of bacterial cells include isolation and analysis of nucleic acid such as DNA or RNA. Known methods for isolating nucleic acids from a sample often include several stringent sample preparation steps that require expensive and specialized equipment. In particular, such steps include 1) removing the proteins within a sample containing bacteria or cells by adding a protease; 2) breaking down the remaining bulk sample to expose the nucleic acids contained therein (also referred to as cell lysing); 3) precipitating the nucleic acid from the sample; 4) washing and/or otherwise preparing the nucleic acid for further analysis; 5) analyzing the nucleic acid to identify the species. After preparing the sample, known analysis methods can include polymerase chain reaction (PCR), gene sequencing, gene fingerprinting, fluorescence, immunoassay, electrochemical immunoassay, microarrays, any other suitable technique or a combination thereof. PCR has found widespread commercial usage but often requires multiple steps involving expensive reagents and instrumentation. Many known methods involving PCR are not suitable for bench top testing (e.g., they require relatively skilled personnel). Moreover, known PCR methods employ thermal cycling and/or elevated temperatures, which can increase the cost, time and/or complexity of the analysis. In addition, because nucleic acid amplification based techniques do not measure the response of a bacteria to an antibiotic, such techniques are not suitable for antibiotic susceptibility testing. Finally, because nucleic acid amplification methods lyse the sample cells, such methods cannot distinguish between live and dead cells.
Some known systems and methods for cell identification include the use of bacteriophages to identify and/or detect certain bacteria. In some known methods, phages that are tagged with a reporter molecule can be used to target and infect a specific bacterial strain. After infection, the phages can undergo a lytic cycle (i.e., break the cell wall killing the target bacteria) and/or a lysogenic cycle (i.e., replication of the phage along with the bacteria without killing the bacteria), followed by detection of the amplified progeny phage. Such known methods relying on phage detection often include limiting or complex steps. For example, some known phage detection-based methods for identification rely on phage replication (during which the bacteria can be lysed), and typically require cell culturing for facilitating this process. Some known phage detection-based methods require removal or “unbinding” of specifically bound phages from the samples using carefully metered and/or pH controlled reagents. Moreover, some known phage detection-based methods rely on careful metering of the amount of phage added and/or include opening or closing of the reaction chamber to add/remove reagents, which can lead to contamination and/or premature mixing of reagents leading to erroneous results and making the assay complex in nature.
Some known phage based systems and methods can result in undesirable and/or inconsistent delivery of reagents into a closed system. For example, some known systems and methods deliver reagents into a sample to facilitate a reaction that can be optically detected. Inconsistent and/or inaccurate delivery of such reagents can result in undesirable variability associated with the light detection, potentially false readings or the like. Some known systems employ sealed reagent containers or “blister packs” to isolate the reagents and the sample until delivery of the reagents is desired. To facilitate delivery of reagents from a blister pack, some known systems include mechanisms, such as rollers, to expel the reagent (see, e.g., WO2005/085855, FIG. 31). Other known systems include multiple puncturers to facilitate the rupture of a blister pack (see e.g., WO2007/115378, FIG. 16). Excessive “dead volume” (the volume within a blister pack after actuation that can contain the reagent), however, can result in inconsistent delivery times and/or amounts. Moreover, delivery mechanisms of known systems can produce undesired effects when the reagent is delivered (e.g., excessive splash or incomplete mixing). Thus, many known systems do not accommodate delivery of reagents associated with a flash luminescence reaction.
In addition to the above-described drawbacks regarding the use of phage-based methods, known methods do not employ automation or instrumentation for enabling a “walk away” bacteriophage identification system. For example, many known systems do not accommodate closed system handling and/or measurement of a signal that is produced by certain reporter molecules, such as for example, a flash luminescence reaction. Thus, known systems and methods require skilled personnel and intimate handling of the samples, which can increase the possibility of false positives or negatives.
Thus, a need exists for improved apparatus and methods for rapid, cost effective and facile detection and identification of bacterial species in clinical samples. In particular, a need exists for improved rupture structures and delivery paths within such systems. In addition, a need exists for improved apparatus and methods for efficient storage and transfer of clinical samples from a point of collection to a testing location.